Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-29-2003, 02:06 AM   #51
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
OK, very good. The only thing I read (in the SF Chronicle) was that the mayor was complaining about how much the protestors cost the City, curiously saying that: "the peace protestors are ruining the peaceful nature of San Francisco." Typical of W. Brown, IMA.

Anyway, check out this article in the Chronicle, a very mainstream paper:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...29/PROTEST.TMP

In the biker section, I counted only 3 paragraphs that had a positive comment for the protestors, as opposed to the other 15, negative paragraphs (they block traffic, etc).

The second half of the article is more neutral toward the protestors, but the what they don'r say of the pro-war rally is interesting. The numbers of attendees for the "pro-troops" rally was absent, even though the anti-war really arrest #'s were known.

Also, the lack of ID of "organizer Bennet" is suspicious. Several of these rallies are organized by corporations and radio-stations, not grassroots organizations.

And, the final comment about "SF being too liberal" puts the blame for low attendance on SF, rather than general disagreement with the war (not saying they should or shouldn't, but no mention was made of this possibility).

What do you think?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2003, 08:20 AM   #52
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Neil,
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
In the biker section, I counted only 3 paragraphs that had a positive comment for the protestors, as opposed to the other 15, negative paragraphs (they block traffic, etc).
I didn't get quite the same count. All the paragraphs under "Show of support" didn't look negative to me.
Quote:
what they don'r say of the pro-war rally is interesting. The numbers of attendees for the "pro-troops" rally was absent, even though the anti-war really arrest #'s were known.
I thought the article did mention the numbers: "About 125 people gathered in noontime sunshine to voice their support for U.S. forces", and "dozens of people gathered to support the troops" .
Quote:
Also, the lack of ID of "organizer Bennet" is suspicious. Several of these rallies are organized by corporations and radio-stations, not grassroots organizations.
Well, for me it would be more important to know whether the participants showed up of their own will, even if it was a radio station who called them to come.
Quote:
And, the final comment about "SF being too liberal" puts the blame for low attendance on SF, rather than general disagreement with the war (not saying they should or shouldn't, but no mention was made of this possibility).
Hmm... not too sure about this one. I can see how finishing the article with this paragraph leaves a certain impression, although I can't say for sure this was the author's intention. This is not an analytical article, and the final comment is that of a support-the-troops-rally participant, nothing more.

Daniel
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2003, 08:49 PM   #53
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Sorry, Daniel: you're right, I went back and looked and I miscounted about the negative's.

If you're still interested, perhaps if you counted the # of negatives that you see, and I'll see if we agree...?

Also, regarding the radio show: who sponsors the rallies is very important. Unlike any of the anti-war rallies, the pro-war rallies are mostly sponsored by corporate media outlets.

But, this story gets more interesting, the more you look into it.

Look at this:

"Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

Now, I don't know, some ppl might cry "biased media!" and "corporate control of rallies," and all, but if there's a connection, it sure is interesting. Amost classically close to the f(ascist)-word, if I may say so.

But, yes: I fully admit my bias.

Actually, I'm still blown away by the revelation that the US consciously used starvation and denial of water to a whole country, to get Hussein to do their bidding, and they knew the full consequences of the Sanctions beforehand.

Where are these people's humanity...?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2003, 02:01 PM   #54
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
If you're still interested, perhaps if you counted the # of negatives that you see, and I'll see if we agree...?
You know, I tried, but I couldn't finish because it isn't quite clear what is negative. To me, stating the fact that a rally disrupted the traffic is not negative, it's just a fact. So... it's all subjective.
Quote:
Also, regarding the radio show: who sponsors the rallies is very important. Unlike any of the anti-war rallies, the pro-war rallies are mostly sponsored by corporate media outlets...
I agree that it's different, but again: if pro-war rally participants are not lured there with, ummm, I don't know - $20 bills to each participant - to me it's more or less kosher, at least on that level. The connection between Clear Channel and Bush is indeed interesting, but these things don't surprise me anymore. I don't devote much time to listening to Clear Channel stations, but so far I didn't hear anything outrageos. Calls to support the troops - that's fine, and I think it should be that way. Those are music stations, and it's not their job to analyze the situation. As long as NPR keeps it balanced and to the point, I'm content.
Quote:
Actually, I'm still blown away by the revelation that the US consciously used starvation and denial of water to a whole country, to get Hussein to do their bidding...
I'll hold my comments for a while - want to see what comes up for rebuttal in other threads

Last edited by DanielR : 03-31-2003 at 02:03 PM.

Daniel
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2003, 05:32 PM   #55
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum (DanielR) wrote:
You know, I tried, but I couldn't finish because it isn't quite clear what is negative. To me, stating the fact that a rally disrupted the traffic is not negative, it's just a fact. So... it's all subjective.
OK, let's take a look at 3 paragraphs I find "negative," as an example:

"But it was Critical Mass that drew the most attention, if only because it was the most disruptive. The ride began shortly after 6 p.m. at Justin Herman Plaza and meandered through the Financial District, creating immediate gridlock.

Long lines of idling cars clogged streets leading to the Bay Bridge, where a line of police in riot gear blocked the First Street ramp to all traffic to prevent cyclists from riding onto the bridge.

"I'm trying to get home to my 6-year-old son," lamented Donna Chen as she sat in traffic on First Street. "This is terrible. They have a right to do what they want to do, but I have a right to go home. "

Now, all three state the truth, but from a negatice perspective. It terms the event as "disruptive," "creating gridlock," causing motorists to "lament."

Sure, all these things are true, but what about the perspective of the bikers? What about their thoughts on freedom to assemble? What about motorists who SUPPORTED thre bikers? Surely some1 supported their cause, and didn't mind the wait. Why no comments from them?

Now, I'm not saying that the slant is a big one; just enough to paint the bikersa in a negative light, as an example.
Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum (DanielR) wrote:
I agree that it's different, but again: if pro-war rally participants are not lured there with, ummm, I don't know - $20 bills to each participant - to me it's more or less kosher, at least on that level. The connection between Clear Channel and Bush is indeed interesting, but these things don't surprise me anymore. Calls to support the troops - that's fine, and I think it should be that way. Those are music stations, and it's not their job to analyze the situation. As long as NPR keeps it balanced and to the point, I'm content.
Don't get me started on NPR (1 week after 9/11, the Morning Show asked if the President "should" use assassination as a form of legitimate foreign policy. They're better than the "mainstream," but not much, IMO).

And, the Germans had state-sponsored rallies in the '30's, too. The corporate sponsorship gives an eerie similarity, to these rallies.

My 2 cents.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2003, 08:59 PM   #56
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Quote:
Neil wrote:
Now, all three state the truth, but from a negatice perspective. It terms the event as "disruptive," "creating gridlock," causing motorists to "lament."
Well, I was going to say that this is exactly what happened, so why not write it like that? Then I thought that if it was a St Patrik's Day parade, the tone would be different. I see your point.
Quote:
Neil wrote:
what about the perspective of the bikers? What about their thoughts on freedom to assemble? What about motorists who SUPPORTED thre bikers? Surely some1 supported their cause, and didn't mind the wait. Why no comments from them?
Well, actually... :
Quote:
Not everyone on four wheels was angry at those on two. Many motorists honked in support of the demonstrators, and while some waved fists in anger, others waved peace signs in solidarity.

"I support the protest. I support it so much I gave myself two hours to get to the airport," said Leecia Welch as she sat in a cab taking her to San Francisco International Airport for a flight to Seattle. "I hope it's enough."
Man, and I thought NPR was still ok :
Quote:
Neil wrote:
Don't get me started on NPR (1 week after 9/11, the Morning Show asked if the President "should" use assassination as a form of legitimate foreign policy.
Would you please clarify why do you see this question as illegitimate or unbalanced?
Quote:
Neil wrote:
And, the Germans had state-sponsored rallies in the '30's, too. The corporate sponsorship gives an eerie similarity, to these rallies.
You know, Neil, I once tried on this forum to draw a parallel between a certain policy and a nazi policy. It didn't go all that well, and I can understand why. I'm now much more careful with drawing such parallels.

So again I go back to what I originally said: to me, it's more important what is said rather than who sponsored the speaker.

Daniel
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2003, 09:52 PM   #57
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum (DanielR) wrote:
So again I go back to what I originally said: to me, it's more important what is said rather than who sponsored the speaker.
Yeah, I don't take quite as much umbrage about the corporate-sponsorship thing, as some Lefties.

They're radio, they're right-wing, and they're going to use their power however they can. But, it IS a little disturbing, along with the military takeover of the media, and the loss of civil liberties.

I've heard a fair number of ppl mutter "rise of US fascism," and I don't know...Vandenberg AFB has shoot-to-kill orders against tresspassers (protestors), and the police abuses are not a heartening sign...particularly when a good portion of the police went to the "Pro-war" rally.

But, thanks for hanging in with me about the article. That's how you determine the bias of any article: the more negative paragraphs, the worse it is.

Regarding assassinations...? Well, if you think that state-sponsored assassinations are OK, I guess, then, that you feel perfectly safe knowing that Mossad (the Israeli secret service) has announced their intention to conduct assassinations outside Israel: even, in the US.

Does this make you feel safe? It doesn't, for me. Do you see where this is heading?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2003, 06:57 AM   #58
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Regarding assassinations...? Well, if you think that state-sponsored assassinations are OK, I guess, then, that you feel perfectly safe knowing that Mossad (the Israeli secret service) has announced their intention to conduct assassinations outside Israel: even, in the US.
But Neil, this wasn't my question. We're not debating whether state-sponsored assasinations are ok. You said that even asking about it made NPR look unbalanced in your eyes. It's not like NPR was calling the US gov't to immediately start with that policy - they were asking someone whether that was the way to go. IMHO, a perfectly legitimate question to ask, given that Israel has been conducting this policy for a while now, so it's reasonable for a journalist to assume that an answer to this question would be interesting to many listeners.

Daniel
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2003, 03:27 PM   #59
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum (DanielR) wrote:
But Neil, this wasn't my question. We're not debating whether state-sponsored assasinations are ok. You said that even asking about it made NPR look unbalanced in your eyes. It's not like NPR was calling the US gov't to immediately start with that policy - they were asking someone whether that was the way to go. IMHO, a perfectly legitimate question to ask, given that Israel has been conducting this policy for a while now, so it's reasonable for a journalist to assume that an answer to this question would be interesting to many listeners.
OK. I see your point. And, IMA, the radio-program is a side-issue (still germaine, but somewhat off to the side).

I think it's perfectly fine to debate this topic (necessary, in fact), but I am amazed that they did not have any discussion about the legitimacy of the action; no int'l legal experts on the validity of assassinations, etc. My recollection of the program is spotty; I'd have to go back and listen, again.

One interesting anecdote about spin on the media: I was listening to a DemocracyNow! broadcast, and Amy Goodman brought on a caller who called another radio show (The Alice show) to complain. It appears that Sarah, the morning DJ, exhorted listening motorists to run over protestors who get in their way.

I was shocked. Since the radio stn sponsoring the Alice show is in the Bay Area, I called them and spoke to another DJ, and asked her if it was true. She said that the Program Mgr was reviewing the whole program and would be issuing a statement the next day. She said that Sarah did NOT suggest motorists run over protestors, and that the caller on DN! might be liable for a lawsuit.

I asked her if an archived stream could be put on their website, but she dissembled, and didn't give a straight answer.

To date, there are no letters from the PM on the Alice website, and no archived links for shows. I sent the DJ an email, requesting again the PM's letter, but I got no response.

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2003, 06:26 PM   #60
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
I think it's perfectly fine to debate this topic (necessary, in fact), but I am amazed that they did not have any discussion about the legitimacy of the action; no int'l legal experts on the validity of assassinations, etc. My recollection of the program is spotty; I'd have to go back and listen, again.
It would've been an interesting topic for "Justice Talking". There was one on fighting terrorism soon after 9/11, maybe they went over it.
Quote:
It appears that Sarah, the morning DJ, exhorted listening motorists to run over protestors who get in their way...
Nonsense like this is one of the reasons I stopped listening to one of apparently more popular stations in NY. The way some DJs allow themselves to talk about the war and related subjects is abhorrent. Some kind of prepackaged patriotism for mass consumption, I assume.

Last edited by DanielR : 04-01-2003 at 06:29 PM.

Daniel
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2003, 06:39 PM   #61
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
I never listen to the ignorance and stupidity that comes from the mouths of DJ's who seem to only appeal to ignorant popularity.

Likewise, lately I rarely even watch the news since it seems to be very concerned with ratings and making money.

I would love to see shows and talks that get to the core subjects of solving problems. Once you identify yourself as having a problem (which I think we all agree WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE!) you must get on with solving it.

Saying things such as running over protesters is absurd and just plain ignorant.

When are we going to start solving problems at the core level? Taking care of the environment, not being wasteful, and the like?

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2003, 07:08 PM   #62
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
I would love to see shows and talks that get to the core subjects of solving problems.
Well, during my years in the US I found NPR to be the closest thing to that. You know what the problem is though? The problems we're talking about here would require a lot of airtime...

Daniel
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2003, 07:19 PM   #63
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Good post, Kevin. I totally agree.

When are we going to start getting to solving the core problems, and not dodging them?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2003, 06:52 PM   #64
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
I do take time to listen to NPR when I can. I do find that to be the most "comforting"

but with everything in life you must constantly question and think for yourself and realize that your thoughts and opinions are shaped by the perspective and influences of your environment.

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2003, 09:14 PM   #65
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Can't you almost feel the love??

CONVERT, AND GET WATER
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2003, 10:13 AM   #66
Anat Amitay
Dojo: Nes- Ziona, "the red house"
Location: Israel
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 137
Israel
Offline
Kevin,

to your question about when we're going to start solving problems at core level and take care of the invironment...

Well, when politicians will want their place in politics for the best of their people and not the best of their pockets...

It is only politics that brings a country to war (sometimes justful and sometimes not), but as leaders, they have (or should have) the power to influence and make decisions.

If the people in power would decide to make the world a better place and keep it 'in good shape' for the generations to come, than maybe things would have looked different. maybe more laws for the safekeeping of invironment would be passed and seriosely recognized, maybe more talks would take place instead of the whispers between those in power on what benefit they might gain. How many people around the world actualy believe that you need to concure Iraq in order to make Saddam fall? or is the conquer meant to have a hand on the oil fields? is that a good enough reason for the soldiers killed?

(sorry I'm making this so blunt, I know there is much more to it).

I think that as long as people with power and money run the politics, in their basis, they want more power and money, and not the best for the people.

just my 2 cents.

Anat
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2003, 07:12 PM   #67
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Good points Anat...

I think we as a people (citizens) need to do a much better job of holding them accountable.

It is easy to play the victim of money and power, at some point we need to take responsibility that it is us, the majority who put these people in office.

Just as we expect teachers to raise our kids while we go off and work hard so we can have 2 cars a large mortgage and other niceties. We then blame the "system" when the kill others in schools and get into drugs.

At some point we have to accept that we all are at fault and need to be accountable for our actions as a country!

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2003, 07:15 PM   #68
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Oh one other thought...

I think that is why the martial arts and aikido in particular are so attractive to me....

It is the one place that you must be honest both with yourself and your partners.....

It is hard to "fake" or "grandstand" or hide your faults...

In order to do it...you must be somewhat honest.

(I do admit that their are some ways to hide behind your ego...but less than in other ventures!)

  Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2003, 06:45 AM   #69
Michael Neal
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 601
Offline
Very Funny

http://www.mywebdimension.com/images...protesters.jpg
  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:48 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate